Western Union reducing fees for money sent to Africa from UK

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Trophy Videos · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:00 am

http://www.westernunion.co.uk/gb/campaigns/corridors/send-money-to-africa.page?

I'm sure this will not be so popular with anti-scam sites, nor scammed victims. Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:02 am

Not very pro-active there, WU.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:41 am

I don't know how much difference it will make to scammers and their victims. To the victim it is money lost, regardless. To the scammer, it is not his problem. WU are a business like any other, with competitors, customers and overheads, and this is just them doing their bit to remain competitive, bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of all WU transactions are legitimate and useful. Fraud prevention is a security issue, not a marketing one.

Trophy Videos · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:42 am

If anyone is interested in voicing their displeasure of the planned 1 pound transfer fee, that will allow scammers to drink more top-shelf liquor and pay for more expensive hookers, along with making it less expensive tor victims to send money to the scammers, here are their contact details:

By Mail - Online Transactions Only
Western Union Internet United Kingdom
PO Box 8252
LONDON United Kingdom
W6 0BX

By Phone - Online Transactions Only
If you have questions about online transactions, please call one of the following:
In the UK, call 0808 234 9168 (available 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Outside the UK, call +32-(0)2 639 7103

Corporate Contact Information
Corporate Headquarters
12500 E. Belford Ave
Englewood, CO 80112
USA
+1-720-332-1000

Media Relations
12500 E. Belford Ave
Englewood, CO 80112
USA
+1-720-332-1000 ext.5

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:03 am

What a stupid fucking thread.

So you think that the millions of Africans who don't scam should suffer because of those who do?

Ignorance beyond belief wrote:

If anyone is interested in voicing their displeasure of the planned 1 pound transfer fee, that will allow scammers to drink more top-shelf liquor and pay for more expensive hookers, along with making it less expensive tor victims to send money to the scammers...

Or how about rewriting that crap so it reads:

Quote:

If anyone is interested in voicing their displeasure of the planned 1 pound transfer fee, that will allow ordinary Africans to eat, live and pay for their children's schooling, along with making it less expensive for expatriates to send money to their relatives...

You will also note that WU have reduced their fees worldwide. Are you seriously deluded enough to suggest that Africa should be singled out as the only place to have their fees remain the same?

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:57 am

So what if people do make a fuss about it? As I see it, the more publicity, the greater scam awareness is raised. As much as rhetoric goes against the grain with me, the trouble with balanced argument is it doesn't make good copy for headlines, so sod-it, I hope the press kicks up a storm.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:10 pm

WU fees* are ridiculously expensive for people who need to use money transfer for legitimate purposes, any reduction even if temporary or "promotional only" has to be applauded even if a small %% of the service's users are scammers.

* and those of their competitors - it's not just WU who are making loads of money by offering these services.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:32 am

I agree with slightly there are many africans that work where I do and send money back for their family. And everyone of them and wonderful hard working people that im am proud to call my freinds. Why punish all for the transgretions of the few

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:30 am

The press won't make a fuss, and there will only be around 30 opinions voiced.
Why? Because it's not WU or any their colleagues fault, that scammers use their services for fraudulent purposes. Just as it isn't Microsofts fault, that scammers use Word to make scam documents, and it isn't the fault of Apple that scammers calls victims from iPhones.
WU has a business to run, and the hard fact is, as pointed out by others, that only a fraction of the WU transactions made in any given day are of a fraudulent nature. We baiters mainly run into the WU brand in a scam context, but to a vast number of people, it is a way - sometimes the only way - to send meal tickets for home. Demanding that WU should have the actions of scammers dictate their price policy is just silly to me.

WU are doing what they can to prevent and educate. Scammers using their services is no more their fault, than it's the fault of Ford Motors that people gets injured and killed in traffic, or the fault of Smith & Wesson that people use guns for crime.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:14 pm

For those of you that want to know more about what the squirrel was talking about you should read this wiki article about remittances. This is a phenomenon that is not new, but with globalization is playing an increasingly large role in the economy of many households in developing countries.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:09 pm

I honestly can't think of anything else that needs to be said. The thread should be allowed to fall behind and die a death.

We have been over this time and time again. WU is a legitimate business that criminals take advantage of. WU does do things to prevent fraud.

Try to keep it in mind that it is lads who scam. WU is just doing their job by providing a service to hundreds of millions of people all over the world. If lads up and took their business elsewhere, WU's revenue wouldn't suffer much at all.

Next time you want to blame WU, just use common sense instead.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:42 pm

Right on ghost. I move this thread be locked. Do I hear a second?

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:03 pm

There's no need to lock it. Just let it die off on its own.

Western Union reducing fees for money sent to Africa from UK	View next topic View previous topic